DeanUK2US

A thought just came to mind: on the face of it the VWP removes the bother of having to both pay and wait an extended period for an appropriate visa. But! The VWP actually imposes restrictions that would otherwise be granted with a visa like more than 90 day stay limits, and the option to tailor an appropriate visa more suited to one's purpose.

Have I got my facts right here?

ian-mstm

The VWP benefits the traveller who has no need/desire to stay in the US more than 90 days. If a visa is more appropriate to his travel plans, then the person can opt to apply for a visa. It's the traveller's choice... and risk. If the traveller doesn't know or care enough to ask about the pros/cons of the VWP vs Visa, well... what more is there to say?

Ian

S Folinsky

Not really.

Bob

It does if the person lives way the balls up north and doesn't fancy coming all the way down to London for the day to get a visa etc...

Plus would you seriously bother go through all that ball ache just for a weeks holiday to Florida? No, you wouldn't, you'd go else where that wasn't a pain in the arse. So it benefits more than just the traveller.

fatbrit

In the old, old days well before the VWP, you just mailed your passport to the embassy and they mailed it back with the visa inside. No interview malarkey generally required.

md95065

Yes, the VWP does have some benefits for many travelers.

In general, however, it would be a mistake to spend too much time looking through US immigration law for things that "benefit" people seeking to enter the US ...

Bob

less money to skim off you that way though

crg

Yeh. Unfortunately, I think some guys from Saudi Arabia ruined that for everyone. I think if you can afford more than a 90 day vacation/visit then you can most certainly afford a visa fee and the travel to the consulate to get one.

Lissbovavd

DeanUK2US,

IMHO the VWP is a great idea for the occasional US visitor, but quickly gets increasingly "wobbly" the more often one travels to the US, and especially so in conjunction with fairly to very long sojourns in the US. Repeated 90-day visits over a relatively short space of time quickly become a gamble at the POE.

Of course, the only reasonably certain way to be able to make frequent visits to the US without too much fear of being turned around at the POE is to be married to a USC. With some luck, at least.

Because of the extremely wideranging powers expressly given to each individual POE officer in assessing every arriving "alien", being admitted into the US could easily be a matter of a "hit or miss" even for the well-prepared traveller.
Very possibly more so than in any other western democracy in the world.

S Folinsky

You should look up the history of the VWP and admission procedures in general. Currently, given the discretion granted to the POE officers, there is a clear advantage to using the VWP if the chances of admission are wobbly.

scrubbedexpat099

No brainer

Most of those with the access to a VWP can use it.

Most of those needing to apply for a B would not get one.

E3only

Not really - put it this way VWP (countries) gives you the privileged to head to the States without a visa. That's massive - ask anyone who is trying to get a visa from say sub continent.

As the agreement says - it supposed to be used to travel/business (I know business is open ended word but leave that for now!) and as such 90 days should be enough.

Flip side is, VWP participating country citizens are to prove why they need more than 90 days if they do want to head more than 90 days.

works both ways the way I see it.

crg

"the only reasonably certain way to be able to make frequent visits to the US without too much fear of being turned around at the POE is to be married to a USC"

I disagree. Being married to a USC can be detrimental to gaining access with the VWP.

Also, if things are "wobbly" the VWP may be preferred because the penalty assessed with a VWP refusal isn't as severe as an expedited removal order that someone with a visa may get.

I wouldn't say the VWP person is more likely to be admitted. It's probably more likely that the frequent VWP traveler would get denied that someone with a visa, but the penalty if things go south is less.

ian-mstm

What nonsense! Being married to a USC imparts *no* benefits whatsoever with respect to entering the US with any more ease... and may, in fact, be highly detrimental to the effort!

Ian

DeanUK2US

More or less the answers I expected!

Where my concern comes is that on average (not official, of course) the majority of travellers can only spend up to two weeks on a trip due to work commitments, yet the VWP permits 90 days. Now if the VWP permits 90 days which the average person will not be able to fulfil, they clearly will be on the trip most likely for other reasons not permitted by the small print of the VWP if they stay for as long as the limit - with some exceptions, of course (sabbaticals, etc). This leads me to believe that on the whole, or more likely for the significant part, the conditions of the VWP are actually broken - and this is permitted because of the duration of time that visitors are allowed to stay.

Now, for other visas like the B2 visitor visa a person needs to have fantastic reasons for being granted one. Why should up to 6 months be any more of a risk than 90 days? Most, including myself, cannot dream of spending 90 days due to one's ties to their home country which might have to be proved at the POE!

Yes, people have emergencies but not to the frequency that warrants pre-emptive extension to their stay.

Also, do countries that do not have the privilege of the VWP have more or less visitors to the US turned away than visitors who are turned away on the VWP?